Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-02538
Original file (BC-2005-02538.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02538
            INDEX CODE:  145.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His civilian medical record be incorporated into his military  medical
records, he be reimbursed for all private insurance  medical  payments
and  costs  associated  with  the  motor  vehicle  accident  (MVA)  he
experienced on 19 January 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was enroute to his duty station when he was involved in a MVA  that
resulted in a line of duty (LOD) determination he  received  over  six
months after his MVA.  Even though he  was  on  orders  when  the  MVA
occurred and he informed  his  supervisor  of  the  accident  and  his
injuries, no Military Treatment Facility (MTF) services were provided,
no investigation of the accident was initiated and no LOD process  was
initiated.  While on duty the 21st through the 24th of  January  2005,
his condition worsened.  He saw his Personal Care Physician  (PCP)  on
25 January 2005 and was put on  medications,  work  restrictions,  and
physical therapy (PT).   He  was  ordered  to  see  his  unit  medical
personnel (113th MDG) during the February 2005 Unit Training  Assembly
(UTA).  He did so, but he was not  examined  by  the  doctor  but  was
placed on 4T Profile (Temporary) and an LOD  was  initiated.   He  was
still not offered MTF assistance and continued to  see  his  PCP.   He
kept the 113th MDG updated monthly on his physical status and received
the LOD on 23 July 2005.  He was then instructed to report to the  MTF
at Andrews AFB for continued medical care and  was  to  stop  civilian
care.  He reported to the MTF but was refused treatment.  He  informed
the 113th MDG but no progress or corrective action was taken  for  him
to receive MTF treatment.  During the  previous  months  he  had  been
diagnosed  with  spinal  problems,  Chronic  Fatigue  Syndrome  (CFS),
Fibromyalgia (FMS), and Post Traumatic Stress  Disorder  (PTSD)  among
other medical problems including pending spinal surgery.  He began  to
worry about the medical cost he was accumulating as a result of seeing
civilian specialists and the fact his military medical record was  not
being  documented  with  the  civilian  care  he  was  receiving.   He
continued to work with the 113th MDG and the military  medical  system
called Tricare.  As he was not finding  relief  through  the  military
medical system, he continued with his civilian treatment and underwent
a C-Spine Discectomy with Fusion on 28 November  2005.   The  lack  of
care by an MTF, if only to refer him to the civilian providers he  has
been seeing, has resulted in a lack of care for a military  member  as
well as waste, fraud  and  abuse  medical  payments  made  by  private
insurance  companies  and  the  responsibility  of  residual   medical
expenses of the injured member.  His  concerns  have  been  repeatedly
voiced to the District of Columbia Air  National  Guard  (DCANG)  Head
Quarters, 113th Fighter Group  leadership  and  personnel,  and  other
offices that have ultimately led to no corrective action  being  taken
in his case to  date.   His  entire  military  career  and  everything
associated with such has  been  threatened  by  the  inaction  of  the
military to adequately address his medical  situation.   He  questions
how his personal medical costs  are  going  to  be  addressed  by  the
military since no MTF treatment was provided.   A  Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) was initiated in February, 2006.  As a result of being  on
a 4T Profile status for over a year, with no MTF treatment or care, he
is concerned the MEB will conspire to eliminate him  from  duty.   Not
having the opportunity to complete medical treatment or care,  an  MEB
should  consider  all  of  his  medical  diagnoses,   conditions   and
treatments.  Current 113th MDG evaluations of civilian medical records
are not addressing up-to-date medical diagnosis, conditions,  symptoms
or treatment information.  He believes all medical records  should  be
addressed by the MEB.  On 16 March 2006, he filed a complaint with the
Air Force Inspector General  (IG)  alleging  the  complaints  included
above.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies of pertinent email trails  and  civilian  medical
records as well as insurance documents.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the  grade  of
second lieutenant (2Lt) on 18 May 1985.  He was progressively promoted
to the grade of captain with a date of rank (DOR) of 29 May 1989.   He
left the Air Force and spent approximately the next three years in the
Obligated Reserve Section (ORS) and the Nonobligated  Nonparticipating
Reserve Section (NNRPS) and the Inactive Status List  Reserve  Section
(ISLRS) until 23 March 1998 when he was appointed in the Air  National
Guard (ANG).  He was promoted to the Reserve grade of major with a DOR
of 1 September 2000.  He is currently serving in  the  DCANG  and  has
over 16 satisfactory years toward a Reserve retirement at age 60.

_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1P0F recommends denial.  A1P0F has attached a memorandum from the
DCANG that has been approved by the ANG Subject Matter  Expert  (SME).
A1P0F contends firstly that there  is  no  requirement  that  personal
medical records  be  documented  with  civilian  diagnosis,  symptoms,
conditions, and treatments.  Further, the AFBCMR  does  not  have  the
authority to authorize payments to private insurance companies, nor to
personally accrued medical costs by an individual.

A1P0F’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
12 January 2007 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  We took  notice  of  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of  the  case;  however,  we
noted the applicant is currently undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB), has filed an IG Complaint and a Congressional  Inquiry  all  of
which are outstanding and have yet to be decided finally.   Therefore,
in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board  for
Correction of Military Records, the applicant has  not  exhausted  all
available administrative remedies with which to find  relief.   Should
all other remedies to find relief fail, we encourage him to reapply to
the AFBCMR.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02538  in  Executive  Session  on  16  August  2007,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1P0F, dated 26 Dec 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 07.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900280

    Original file (9900280.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She provides medical records that she believes indicate her ex-husband was treated for injuries consistent with a driver of an automobile in a head-on collision. The records also indicate that the injuries were sustained in a motor vehicle accident and that he was the possible driver. Also, in a Social Work Service report from applicant’s medical records, dated 31 January 1996, a social worker noted: “MVA [Motor Vehicle Accident] New Year’s Eve was patient’s 3rd DWI [Driving While...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011233C070208

    Original file (20040011233C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submits two separate DD Forms 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record). In an application dated 20050716 and transmitted to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) by facsimile, he modifies his earlier application by requesting reimbursement of his medical expenses in the amount of $43,338.54. Army regulations authorize the applicant treatment for his injury in an Army MTF.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601264

    Original file (9601264.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Air Force Reviewoards Agency RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: * COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be refunded for prenatal and delivery expenses incurred in a civilian facility after her separation in the amount of $4,237.14. If approved, (applicant's request was not), the individual must be informed any maternity care in a civilian medical facility is at the patient's own expense and, if care must be...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072152C070403

    Original file (2002072152C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s commander stated that his injury was in line of duty. The evidence also shows that the applicant’s commander, on 5 November 1994, determined that the applicant’s injury was in line of duty, and that he was transported to the Fairview Ridges Hospital emergency room. The applicant may yet want to submit a claim to his commander for his expenses, based on the determination made by this Board to correct the 14 August 1995 finding on the line of duty investigation to “in line of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01410

    Original file (BC 2014 01410.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon returning from his AD deployment in 2012 he was denied Medical Continuation (MEDCON) orders and pay by his medical group, and he should have been considered for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). On 12 Dec 12, the Connecticut IG rendered a determination that the applicant’s contested injury was incurred while serving on AD, and, as he was found “fit for duty,” no MEDCON orders were warranted. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00406

    Original file (BC-2007-00406.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After the applicant was released from duty on the day of the accident, he remained in military status for so long as he was traveling directly to his residence. LOD determinations and investigation of Air Force servicemembers incurring injuries while on active duty training tours are made in accordance with the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2910. A copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000132

    Original file (0000132.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00132 INDEX CODE: 108.01, 110.02, 122.01 COUNSEL: Mr. MICHAEL J. CALABRO HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Not In Line of Duty (NLOD) determination be removed from his records; all documents and references pertaining to the NLOD determination be removed from his records; his request for transfer to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03958

    Original file (BC-2003-03958.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He believes he should not have been demobilized, or if demobilized, he should have remained in an active duty status via mandays until such time as his medical case had been resolved. He is confused by SAF/MR’s denial of his extension request after correction of his profile to 4T in that he was injured while on Title 10 orders. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01082

    Original file (BC-2006-01082.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01082 INDEX CODE: 128.08 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation pay he received be adjusted and paid to him as per the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 8 June 2000 indicates. On 28 June 2000, ANG/DPFOM requested the Air Reserve Personnel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02683 1

    Original file (BC 2012 02683 1.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should not have been discharged from active duty with unresolved medical issues and a Line of Duty (LOD) determination should have been initiated prior to his release from active duty. Although the applicant stated he received treatment for his medical conditions while he was on active orders, he has only provided subjective evidence following his release from active duty. If the applicant was...